DEDICATED TO THE MEMORY OF ST. JOHN, ARCHBISHOP OF SHANGHAI AND SAN
FRANCISCO
ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN WITNESS (USPS 412-260)
is published monthly by St. Nectarios American Orthodox Cathedral,
10300 Ashworth Avenue North, Seattle, Washington 98133-9410.
POSTMASTER: Send address changes to
OCW, 10300 Ashworth Ave. N., Seattle, WA. 98133-9410
Fr. Neketas S. Palassis, Editor Email: frneketas@stnectariospress.com
Telephone (206) 522-4471; (800) 643-4233 U.S. & Canada;
Fax: 206-523-0550
FEBRUARY, 2004, Vol. XXXVIII, No. 2 (1533)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introductory Speech at the Round Table on Ecumenism
2. Alarming News for Abortionists
3. The Protestant Federal Council and the Syrian Archdiocese
4. A Visit with Meletios Metaxakis
5. Lenten Selections from the Book Center
Vice takes men away from God and separates them from one another. So we
must turn from it quickly and pursue virtue, which leads to God and
unites us with one another.
Abba Isidore of Pelusia
1. Introductory Speech at the Round Table on Ecumenism
Nyack, NY 8-12 December 2003
Deacon Nikolai Savchenko (St. Petersburg)
An important and well-expressed statement from a deacon of the Moscow
Patriarchate.
Unfortunately, this clergyman is not a bishop, which would make a great
difference to the relevance of this document.
Ecumenism is dangerous not only in that it strives to distort
Orthodoxy, but that it also divides the Orthodox people. On one hand,
ecumenism continues to poison the life of the Orthodox Church, and on
the other, the enemies of ecumenism find themselves split into many
groups, or so-called "jurisdictions," and with every year there are
more of them. Division arises among the Orthodox. This is also one of
the fruits of ecumenism. This is also apostasy. This image of overall
fragmentation is no less dangerous than that of the membership of the
Orthodox Church in the WCC. Both one and the other threaten the
Orthodox teaching of the unity of the Church.
Probably everyone without exception desires that both parts of the
Russian Church, the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate
and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, find communion in
Truth. There is hope for this, for over the last few years, the Russian
Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate has taken a notable stride
away from ecumenism. Still, complete emancipation from ecumenism has
not yet occurred and obstacles to our communion remain. In all
fairness, one cannot say now that the Russian Orthodox Church of the
Moscow Patriarchate as a whole preaches ecumenism. Individual
representatives preach it, but the overwhelming majority of the people
and clergy decisively reject its false teaching. Now it is even
difficult to imagine that books defending ecumenism could be offered in
churches in Russia. All of monasticism is directly opposed to
ecumenism. Demands for withdrawal from the WCC have weakened somewhat
because the leadership of the MP convinced the monastics and laity that
the attitude towards the WCC underwent essential changes and now there
are no more joint ecumenical prayers and ceremonies, and that
representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow
Patriarchate are simply observers in the WCC.
The leadership of the MP also convinced the people and clergy that the
Balamand and Chambesy documents were not approved by the church
leadership and so there is no need for alarm, although we note that
these documents were also not rejected or even evaluated properly.
Ecumenical prayers have almost ceased, having previously been held
regularly in the largest cathedrals. Still, we notice that as before,
they are still allowed with the blessing of the ruling bishop. There
are changes noticed in the pages of the Journal of the Moscow
Patriarchate (JMP). Before, one could find one or two references to
ecumenical and even interfaith prayers in every issue of the JMP. It is
difficult to find even one such mention today. The official journal of
the Moscow Patriarchate now contains almost no reports of ecumenical
activities. At one time there were instances when all the members of
the Synod of the MP, headed by the Patriarch, participated in silent
prayer together with Hindus and Buddhists at interfaith congresses in
Moscow (1987-1988). Now this does not occur, although there has not
been a proper evaluation of this manifestation. There are many such
laypersons and clergymen in Russia today who are convinced, based on
their own experience, that ecumenism no longer exists, that it has
died. Such religious people as a rule are genuinely baffled as to why
the ROCOR even now does not withdraw its rebukes towards the MP for its
ecumenism. In their eyes, we are unwillingly and unwittingly unfair.
This must also be taken into account. The opinion is widespread in
Russia that our Church ostensibly calls for complete exclusion of any
contact with the heterodox. It is felt that we call any conversation or
dialog with those of other faiths ecumenism and demand complete
so-called "isolation." Over the last two years, Patriarch Alexy said
several times in the media that the Russian Orthodox Church cannot be
isolated, and for this reason will continue its membership in the WCC.
These views are also widely held in Russia. Now, when conversations
have begun with the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate,
we must calmly consider all the questions of the ecumenical movement
and membership in the WCC. We must peacefully and with sound arguments
show that our communion is hindered by the matter of ecumenism, and,
first of all, in the question of membership in the WCC.
There are two levels of participation in inter-confessional activities.
One is the participation with the rights of a simple observer, that is,
not as a member, but as a bystander. The other is full membership in an
ecumenical organization. Unfortunately, the Russian Orthodox Church of
the Moscow Patriarchate today participates in the work of the WCC as a
full member of the Council. It is this problem, I feel, upon which we
must concentrate. For it is this membership of the Russian Orthodox
Church of the Moscow Patriarchate in the WCC that more than anything
contradicts the canons of the Orthodox Church, which intentionally or
not threatens its very teachings and so remains as an obstacle to our
communion. One can list the reasons why membership in the WCC becomes
such a problem:
1. The first important reason is that the Russian Orthodox Church of
the Moscow Patriarchate today remains a member of the higher leadership
of the WCC and participates in the administration, planning and
financing of the entire operation of the WCC.
Official representatives of the ROC MP are in the Central Committee of
the WCC. The Central Committee is the administrative organ of the WCC.
It determines the policies of the WCC, makes official statements of a
faith-teaching nature, and makes moral evaluations of various phenomena
of contemporary life in those areas presented to it by member churches.
The membership of the latest CC of the WCC was selected at the assembly
of the WCC in Harare in 1998. The official list of members of the CC of
the WCC shows that there are 5 people from the MP in the Central
Committee, headed by Bishop Illarion (Alfeev). There are some 150
members of the CC overall, including 9 women priests, according to the
official list. The last session of the CC of the WCC with the
participation of the members of the ROC MP was held at the end of
August 2003.
Besides participation in the CC, representatives of the MP are also
members of the Executive Committee of the WCC, the aims of which are
the direct supervision of the entire operation of the WCC and the
organization of all activities. The official list of members of the
Executive Committee consists of 24 persons, including the
representative of the MP, Bishop Illarion (Alfeev). Besides him, the
Executive Committee includes representatives of the Patriarchate of
Constantinople, the Rumanian Patriarchate and the Orthodox Church of
America. The last session of the Executive Committee with the
participation of the representatives of the MP was held in August 2003.
At this session, a new "Committee on Prayer" was formed with the aim of
preparing the text and rite of ecumenical prayer. There are 10 persons
on this Committee, including a representative of the MP, Fr. Andrei
Eliseev. At the same time, the Vice President of the "Committee on
Prayer" is a Protestant woman priest.
Based on the participation of the ROC MP in the higher leadership of
the WCC, in the guidance, planning and financing of the work of the
Council, one can conclude that the ROC MP is in fact responsible for
all the decisions of the WCC, which contradict the dogmatic and moral
teaching of the Orthodox Church.
2. The second reason for the incompatibility of membership in the WCC
with the laws of the Church is that the Constitution of the WCC
considers membership not of individual representatives, but
specifically of the entire Local Church in its fullness. Every Local
Church in the WCC is considered a full member, that is, a part of a
heterodox association.
In accordance with the "Basis of the WCC," it is a "fellowship of
Churches." In this definition lies the essential difference from its
original formulation proposed by the committee called "Faith and Order"
in 1937, when the future WCC was offered as a "community of
representatives of Churches." The difference is significant. A
community of churches themselves is not the same thing as a community
of representatives of churches, as had been stated earlier. In the
present situation it turns out that the Orthodox Church is considered a
part of some wider fellowship under the name of the WCC. The Council is
not a simple association of churches. The founding documents provide
that it is a "body" possessing "ecclesiological significance," as the
heading of the Toronto Statement says.
The understanding of membership in the WCC as a membership of the
entire Orthodox Church exists in documents of the Local Churches. As an
example, the following citation from the document entitled "The
Orthodox Church and the World Council of Churches."
This document was adopted at a session of inter-Orthodox consultation
in Chambesy in 1991. Point 4 states: "The Orthodox Churches participate
in the WCC's life and activities only on the understanding that the WCC
'is a council of churches' and not a council of individuals, groups,
movements or religious bodies which are involved in the Council's goal,
tasks and vision." (JMP No. 1, 1992, p. 62).
Membership in the WCC is not simply the observation of the activities
of the Council. Membership means actually becoming a part of the
ecumenical fellowship. The ROC MP cannot be a member of the WCC, since
this means becoming a part of the ecumenical fellowship.
3. The third reason why membership in the WCC contradicts Orthodoxy is
that membership necessarily signifies agreement with the constitutional
principles of the WCC and its rules. For example, the Constitution of
the WCC (part III) states that the Council was formed by member
churches to serve the one ecumenical movement. Does this mean that the
member churches should or must completely serve the ecumenical
movement? By all appearances, yes. Further, the Constitution (part III)
uses the following words to describe the duties of the churches joining
the Council: In seeking koinonia [fellowship-ed.] in faith and life,
witness and service, the churches through the Council will facilitate
common witness in each place and in all places and nurture the growth
of an ecumenical consciousness."
One other important constitutional document is the declaration "Towards
a Common Understanding and Vision of the World Council of Churches."
This document was adopted by the Central Committee in 1997 with the
participation of representatives of the Local Churches. It also
contains views inconsistent with Orthodox teaching on the Church. First
of all this concerns how to properly understand the cornerstone term of
the "Basis of the WCC," that the Council is a "fellowship of Churches."
It follows from this that the member churches of the WCC are considered
to have entered into an organic ecclesiastical communion with other
members of the WCC with all their ills and heresies. The document
"Towards a Common Understanding and Vision of the World Council of
Churches," point 3.5.3, directly spreads this ecclesiastical communion
over the entire Orthodox Church with all her people.
The main document of the WCC possessing constitutional significance
continues to be the Toronto document "The Church, the Churches and the
World Council of Churches." It was on the basis of this document that
the Local Churches joined the WCC in the 1960's. It also contains
clearly-defined principles which at their root contradict Orthodoxy.
For instance, point 4.8 of the Toronto document states: "The member
Churches enter into spiritual relationships through which they seek to
learn from each other and to give help to each other, in order that the
Body of Christ may be built up and that the life of the Churches may be
renewed." It is obvious that the principle of "building up the Body of
Christ" contradicts Orthodox teaching of the Church, yet it is
prescribed in the founding document of the WCC and has remained
unchanged.
From the above, we can conclude that membership in the WCC presupposes
consent with its constitutional principles, which contradict Orthodoxy.
The ROC MP should not be a member of an organization the constitutional
principles of which contradict Orthodoxy.
The All-Orthodox Conference of 1998 in Thessaloniki decreed that it is
necessary to reform the WCC. In December 1998, a "Special Committee"
was established on Orthodox membership in the WCC. Half of this
committee consisted of representatives of the Local Churches and half
of the heterodox. The goal of the Committee was to clarify the problems
of Orthodox participation and to designate ways to resolve them. It was
even assumed that the activity of the Committee would result in such
changes that would not contradict the laws of the Orthodox Church.
The "Final Report of the Committee" contains ideas that preach the
branch theory. "The Commission envisions a Council that will hold
churches together in an ecumenical space where churches through
dialogue continue to break down the barriers that prevent them from
recognizing each other as churches that confess the one faith,
celebrate one baptism and administer the one eucharist" (section A,
point 11). This citation on the removal of barriers hindering the
attainment of unity clearly reflects the branch theory in a document
signed by representatives of the Local [Orthodox] Churches.
In addition, the "Report," in point 30, section A, calls for the all to
remain members of the WCC to "renew the commitment to stay together,"
and in point 39 states directly that the member churches of the WCC
"experienced progress towards unity."
The final documents do not give any hope for reforming the WCC. At one
time, the Office of External Church Affairs of the MP made a proposal
to divide the structure of the WCC into several parts, reserving one
for the so-called traditional churches. Yet the WCC rejected outright
the proposal of its own fragmentation. The General Secretary of the
WCC, Konrad Reiser, in his report during the next-to-last session of
the Central Committee spoke of the need to reform the WCC, but in his
opinion this reform is needed because of the problems of globalization,
both social and economical, while the desires of the Orthodox he only
briefly mentioned somewhere in his seventh point.
The final documents also give no hope for the cessation of ecumenical
prayers. The report does not state anywhere that Orthodox may not
participate in joint prayers with the heterodox. It speaks only of the
need to differentiate between "confessional" and "inter-confessional"
prayer. The document does not reject in principle joint prayers with
women priests or adherents of unnatural sins. In the matter of the
priesthood of women, these two final documents speak roughly the same
thing that the Damascus document of June 1998 does, where it was
declared that questions of agreement or disagreement with the
priesthood of women, abortion and unnatural sins should not separate
members of the WCC.
There is no need to speak at length about the contemporary ecumenical
movement. Its spirit is well known to us all. But we must speak of, and
effectuate the departure from it, the need to cease to be its member or
participant. Now the choice is clear for participants in the ecumenical
movement. With whom do they stand? With us, Orthodox, or with the
ecumenical movement? With the overwhelming majority of people and
clergymen in Russia and abroad or with Protestants who are alien to us?
Can there be true peace in the Russian Church if this choice is not
made? Can there be true unity in the Truth without this choice? But if,
the Lord help us, this choice is made correctly, then true peace will
return to the Church, which we desire and for which we pray before the
Holy Gifts at every liturgy.
Deacon Nikolai Savchenko
Nyack, NY
2. ALARMING NEWS" FOR ABORTIONISTS (First Things, October 2003)
Faye Wattleton, former president of Planned Parenthood, now heads the
Center for the Advancement of Women, which conducted a national survey
that produced unwelcome findings. "This is alarming news," said
Wattleton. "We are losing ground on many hard-won victories for women's
rights, which could ambush the status that women have achieved." The
survey found that only 30 percent of women in the country said that
abortion should be generally available, while 17 percent say abortion
should be illegal and 34 percent say it should be legal only in the
very rare cases of rape, incest or to prevent the death of the mother.
Using the conventional definitions of pro-choice and pro-life
positions, that is a 51-30 lead for the latter. Presented with the list
of priorities for women, 92 percent named domestic violence, 90 percent
said equal pay for equal work, and preserving abortion came in nexr to
last at 41 percent. Wattleton and others contend that the low level of
interest in preserving the abortion license reflects, at least in part,
the confidence of women that it is not seriously threatened, and there
may be something to that. But the useful talking point is that, thirty
years after Roe v. Wade, a majority of women in America are pro-life.
Asked about the finding, George Gallup said his polls "show pretty much
the same thing."
3. NEWS FROM 1944: THE PROTESTANT FEDERAL COUNCIL AND THE SYRIAN
ARCHDIOCESE The Orthodox American, Oct. 1944
The Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America is the
national organization of the Protestant Churches in America.
During the past year or more the Federal Council received much
publicity in connection with an application by the Universalist Church
to be received into membership. The point is that the Universalist
Church does not officially require its members to believe that Jesus
Christ is God. Although denial of the divinity of Christ is by no means
uncommon among the members of other Protestant Churches, most of the
Protestant denominations officially (because traditionally) affirm the
belief; and when the belief is called into question they must
officially declare they hold it, inasmuch as the "liberals" who deny
the divinity of Christ are not yet numerous and influential enough to
subdue the "conservatives" who demand its retention. Accordingly, the
application by the Universalists forced the older denominations to take
a conservative stand; and the Presbyterian General Assembly warned the
Federal Council to bar from membership all organizations which do not
regard belief in the divinity of Christ as a required Article of Faith.
The Federal Council is naturally and necessarily the tool of the
mutually independent organizations which compose it. All of the
Council's policies and decisions must be by majority vote; after a vote
is taken in any organization, which settles matters by voting, the
minority is expected to accept the result of the vote and to abide by
that result. In the case presented by the application of the
Universalists, it is hard to say whether the Federal Council voted on
the Proposition "RESOLVED: That Jesus Christ is God", or on the
Proposition "RESOLVED: That it doesn't matter whether Jesus Christ is
God or not." Anyway, six of the Protestant sects belonging to the
Council voted for the Universalists and for the second Proposition;
twelve of the sects voted against the Universalists and against the
second Proposition, though not necessarily for the first Proposition;
and two of the sects did not vote at all, which failure probably ought
to be counted as an additional two votes for the second Proposition
though not for the Universalists. The final score therefore would seem
to be 12 to 8 in favor of permitting Jesus Christ to be God, or
possibly 14 to 6 if the indifference of the two non-voting sects be
reckoned as a virtual even if unenthusiastic consent. Inasmuch as in
the Federal Council, the divinity of Christ is a partisan issue to be
settled by votes, the question can be brought up again at any time, and
divinity hereafter may be withdrawn and reconfirmed any number of times.
In December, 1938, His Eminence Metropolitan Antony joined the Federal
Council, thereby gaining for the Syrian Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese
official status as a Protestant sect along with and on terms of perfect
equality with Methodist Episcopalians, Protestant Episcopalians
(Anglicans), Presbyterians, Baptists, and other similar denominations.
His Eminence had hoped by this move to put an end to the spread of
Protestant propaganda among his people, on the theory that the
Protestant sects would not raid the flock of a fellow member. But
Protestant propaganda actually increased instead of diminishing, and at
last reached the point where Protestant ministers published statements
in the newspapers to claim that they have as much right as Orthodox
priests themselves have to celebrate Orthodox sacraments for Orthodox
people even in Orthodox temples.
The application by the Universalists finally made it impossible for His
Eminence to continue as a member of the Federal Council. There were
months of publicity which persistently stressed the obvious and very
painful fact that until a vote should be taken there was no telling
whether or not the Federal Council would or could require belief in the
divinity of Christ as a qualification for membership. No Orthodox
bishop can possibly afford to be a member of any organization in which
the question of Christ's divinity could ever come up for a vote-or in
which any other matter concerning the Orthodox Faith could ever come up
for a vote. But the Federal Council is a Protestant union of mutually
independent Protestant organizations, and it must settle all issues by
the contesting votes of men who, because they are Protestant, may
differ on all else but must and will forever agree unanimously to
esteem private judgment as the supreme authority in religion.
Accordingly, in October, 1944, His Eminence prepared the following
official letter of withdrawal from the Federal Council:
Executive Committee
Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America
Rt. Rev. Henry St. George Tucker, President
Rev. Dr. Samuel McCrea Cavert, General Secretary
297 Fourth Avenue
New York City
Reverend and dear Sirs:
It has grieved and disturbed me deeply to read in the press that some
of the Federal Council's constituent organizations have thought it
necessary to take official notice of the possibility that membership in
the Council might be thrown open to certain other religious
organizations which do not regard belief in the Divinity of Christ as a
required Article of Faith.
An example of the kind of report referred to is an article in the New
York Times of May 27, 1944. It is there recited that the Presbyterian
General Assembly "warned the Federal Council of Churches" to bar such
communions from its membership, and instructed that Presbyterian
membership in the Council "must be contingent upon its (the Council's)
maintaining its evangelical position as set forth in the preamble of
its constitution."
It is surely obvious that no jurisdiction of the Orthodox Church can
belong to any religious association in which it is even so much as
imaginable that membership should be permitted to anybody who denies
the Divinity of Christ or who regards such belief as even open to
discussion. But the warning issued by the Presbyterian General
Assembly, a dignified and responsible body, shows that it regarded as
certainly imaginable the idea that membership in the Council might be
opened up to organizations which officially regard the doctrine of the
Divinity of Christ as an indifferent or even an erroneous doctrine.
Regardless of my personal feelings of respect and regard for the
present membership of the Council, this situation puts me as an
Orthodox bishop in a position which is not merely extremely
embarrassing but actually impossible. I am forced to withdraw from the
Council.
Accordingly, I am writing this letter to convey official notice that on
the tenth day after the date of this letter the Syrian Antiochian
Orthodox Archdiocese of New York and all North America ceases to be a
constituent member of and ceases to be affiliated or connected in any
manner whatsoever with the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in
America. Thereafter the name of our Orthodox Archdiocese shall be
omitted from all lists of members of the Council, and shall not again
be mentioned by the Council or by any of the Council's agencies in any
context which could suggest any connection whatsoever between the
Federal Council and our Archdiocese.
With assurances of the highest personal regard for all the members of
your honorable Committee, I remain,
Very truly yours,
METROPOLITAN ANTONY BASHIR,
Archbishop.
Editors' Note: Recent developments within the denominations that belong
to the National Council of Churches and the World Council of Churches
have made it more than clear that it is high time for the leaders of
"World Orthodoxy" to emulate His Eminence Metropolitan Antony Bashir,
and pull out of the aforementioned organizations, just as he pulled out
of the "Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America" back in
1944.
Back to the future!
An Excerpt of a Letter to Metropolitan Philip Saliba
From a Former Clergyman of the Antiochian Archdiocese
Perhaps my concerns and distress can best be summarized as follows: I
believe in one Lord Jesus Christ as the only Way to the Father and
Eternal life and not the teaching that Mohammad is also a prophet and
way to God. I believe in one true Faith and not the teaching that all
religious roads lead to the same Father. I believe in one Church and
not the teaching that the Church is composed of different and divided
branches, lungs, or denominations. I believe in one Baptism and not the
teaching that the Sacraments exist outside of the one true Church. I
believe the Orthodox Church is composed of all those who hold and
follow the faith of the Saints, Fathers and Councils and not that
Orthodoxy is determined by organizational or administrative
affiliation. I believe also, that ecumenism and modernism, at its
heart, in its pronouncements, and in its activities, is a betrayal of
these beliefs and of the sufferings, deaths and confessions of the
Martyrs, Fathers and Confessors the Church.
4. A VISIT WITH MELETIOS METAXAKIS
The Prestige of the Oecumenical Patriarchate
By Rt. Rev. Archimandrite Kyrill A. W. Johnson
(The Orthodox American, Oct. 1944-Feb. 1945)
One of the pleasant myths in the uninformed Orthodox mind is that which
infers that the various statements and pronouncements of certain
individual Orthodox Patriarchs in conjunction with their Synods have
binding force in the realm of Orthodox faith and morals. Nothing could
be further from the facts.
It is true that there was a time in Orthodox history when such
documents and pronouncements, although local and racial in origin, did
have a certain weight and authority. That period came to an end with
the reconstitution of the Greek nation and the consequent subservience
of Orthodox faith and institutions to the Greek political ideal among
ecclesiastics of Greek blood. Even the most casual student of Orthodox
Church history is struck by the fact that all too often men of high
ecclesiastical position in Orthodoxy, if they are of Greek blood, have
been willing to use their positions to further and advance, not pure
Orthodoxy, as such, but Greek political and racial aspirations.
Without doubt the ideal series of documents by which this thesis could
be adequately proved is that which proceeded from the various Greek
Patriarchates during the crises in Russian Church affairs after the
Russian Revolution.
When the late Russian Patriarch Tikhon, of blessed memory, was deposed
by a rump Synod of Bishops, the then Patriarch of Constantinople,
Meletios, condemned this act as uncanonical. His successor, Gregory
VII, reversed this pronouncement, and in his turn Gregory VII was
reversed by his own successor, Basil III.
The Greeks who occupied the Patriarchate of Jerusalem reveal an equally
unpleasant record of having no mind of their own, or any Orthodox mind
at all for that matter, issuing document after document each in
conflict with itself and with those, which had come before. Aside from
the Russian Patriarchate of Moscow, only the Syrian Patriarch of
Antioch seems to have had the ability to make up his own mind for
himself and to stick to his decisions.
If one collates this series of pronouncements issued by Greek
ecclesiastics with the political events and pressures, which paralleled
their appearance, one soon discovers an obvious relation between their
interpretation of Orthodox canon law and faith and the political
tensions to which they were subjected.
Tempting as it is to explore this field in terms of the Russian
question, we prefer at this time to direct attention to a lesser Greek
political-ecclesiastical document. We do this because we have collected
a considerable body of firsthand and as yet unpublished data relative
to this lesser document. We refer to the pronouncement in the year 1922
by Meletios, Patriarch of Constantinople, on Anglican orders.
The facts necessary to understand the problems involved are simple
enough. On July 28th, 1922, Meletios issued two documents. The first
was in the form of a personal letter, not to the legal head of the
Protestant religion established by law in England, the King, but to one
of his political appointees, the senior of the two Protestant
archbishops functioning in England. The other document was a sort of
round robin addressed to "The Presidents of the Particular Eastern
Churches." The subject matter of both documents concerned itself with
the much-debated question of the possible validity of Protestant
ordinations in the state religion of England.
These two documents were hailed as a seven days' wonder throughout the
Protestant world. With this reaction we are in hearty agreement.
Unfortunately their content was so neatly phrased in the subtle
niceties of the Greek language that neither the casual nor learned
reader could be quite sure what meaning they were intended to convey.
It is not our intent to add another essay in the necessarily dull
exegesis of these documents. Obviously they follow the Pauline
injunction, so dear to the Greek heart, of being all things to all men.
It is our purpose to throw some historical light on the confused
background, which made these documents possible, and to trace the
devious actions of the Greek mind when occasion demands of it that it
say something without saying anything. It can be safely taken for
granted that historical scholarship is fully justified in judging any
document, not only in terms of its content, but also in terms of the
conditions and the men, which brought it forth.
First let us consider the man over whose signature these two documents
saw the light of day. He was one Meletios. By birth he was a Cretan;
and if Pauline injunctions mean anything the wary should at once be put
on their guard. His ecclesiastical career paralleled that of his fellow
Cretan, Venizelos, in the realm of Greek politics. When this statesman
was in power in the Greek world, Meletios also held a position of
power. When the statesman fell, as he did many times, the ecclesiastic
also fell. Let us grant at once that they were both very able men,
intensely devoted to the Greek political ideal.
After the First World War Venizelos fell from power. Meletios, who was
his Archbishop of Athens, fell with him and came to the United States
as an exile. There is sufficient historical evidence to justify the
statement that both the politician and the ecclesiastic were creatures
whose power and position depended upon British foreign policy and
backing.
As exile in this country Meletios found favor with only a minority of
Greek-Americans. He did receive much support from a section of the
Protestant Episcopal Church in this country.
During this period of exile the Throne of Constantinople suddenly
became vacant, and with equal suddenness Meletios was elected to the
Patriarchate. How the Throne of Constantinople became vacant, and how
Meletios was elected, does not concern us here.
In this country the Greeks with consternation received this election.
Some were delighted; many refused to accept it as fact.
It goes without saying that the Protestant Episcopalians received the
news with great rejoicing. How tense the situation was in this country
can be gathered from an article in the New York Tribune of Jan. 8th,
1922. The headline stated that this election "shakes the foundations of
the Greek Church." It did not hide the fact that Meletios' chief
support came from Protestant circles.
In Greece itself the Holy Synod of that country refused to accept the
election of Meletios as canonical and valid. Meletios journeyed to his
Throne by way of England, and it was currently reported that he entered
the Golden Horn on a British man-of-war.
Let us now turn to analyze the conditions, which existed during the
brief administration of Meletios in Constantinople. An inter-allied
military control entered the city. It was made up of representatives of
England, France, Italy and the United States. The city itself had been
promised by secret treaty to Russia at the beginning of the war. All
the nations represented in the city save the United States were playing
the age-old game of power politics. As was natural, the religious
issues of the centuries merged into the political issues. France and
Italy, representing Roman Catholic ambitions, were moving with not too
much caution to establish a claim to the Cathedral Church of Orthodoxy,
Hagia Sophia. If anything was necessary to throw Meletios even further
into the hands of the British, this was more than sufficient.
At the same time the drama of the tragedy of Christian Asia Minor was
developing. A mutual and secret agreement by France and Italy on the
one hand to support Turkish aspirations, and by England on the other to
support Greek aspirations, to the end that a fatal collision of these
two minor powers might ensue to the mutual profit of the Great Powers,
sealed the doom of the ancient Christian Churches of Asia Minor.
It is quite probable that Meletios at that time knew only the externals
of this situation. The hard fact was that he had to sit on his
uncomfortable Throne at the Phanar and watch the growing tension
between the various members of the Allied military control and to hear
each day of new Greek disasters in Asia Minor.
The implications of the situation were obvious to Meletios. Each day
the diminished Greek race was being decimated throughout Asia Minor;
the Great Idea of a reconstituted Byzantine Empire was dissolving into
dust and ashes before his eyes. Meletios, the Greek nationalist, became
a desperate man. He had but one last jewel to spend on wooing British
Imperialism to stop the decimation of his co-racialists in Asia Minor.
The jewel was his Orthodox Faith. He would offer up this precious jewel
to international politics in a last desperate gesture. Out of Meletios'
racial agony was born his pronouncement on Anglican ordinations.
A number of years after it was issued we spent a very pleasant
afternoon with Meletios in Cairo, Egypt. (British influence had
translated him to the Throne of Alexandria.) During our lengthy
discussion of Orthodox affairs we introduced the subject of these two
documents. Without any hesitation Meletios discussed them quite
frankly. He admitted that they had been issued against his better
Orthodox judgment. He also pointed out some pertinent facts, which
should become part of the record if these documents are to be judged in
their proper perspective.
From our notes on this conversation we outline those things, which seem
to have some historical import. He prefaced his remarks by saying that
as a Greek he could not have been expected to sit quietly and not use
everything at his command in an effort to avert the Asia Minor
disaster. He made it quite clear that he realized fully that if the
Turks won he lost the throne of Constantinople. He did not try to
excuse the incongruities contained in the documents. His only
disappointment was that he misjudged British opinion (something which
Greeks are always prone to do).
He made no attempt to deny that his documents accomplished nothing for
the cause of Greece. This he could not quite understand. Like so many
other Greek ecclesiastics he had been thrown into contact with only the
High Church minority, and he had no clear notions about the staid and
respectable Protestantism of the majority of the English church. He was
actually convinced that the majority of the clergy and members of the
Establishment were smarting under the sting of the pronouncement of Leo
XIII declaring English ordinations null and void in form and intent,
and would reward handsomely any statement to the contrary.
It was at this point that Meletios sighed and said, "But these English,
they just do not have any sense of history." Piqued by this statement
we pursued it further, and Meletios replied fully as to his meaning,
and the following is an outline of his convictions as an Orthodox
theologian.
In the first place, he pointed out, as Patriarch of Constantinople he
had no historical or canonical right to intrude into the ecclesiastical
problems of the Christian West. He contended that the bases of the
centuries' old contention between the See of Constantinople and the See
of Rome rested upon the thesis that the See of Rome had no canonical
jurisdiction in the Christian East. By the same token he had to admit
that the See of Constantinople had no canonical right to intrude into
the domestic problems of the See of Rome; and certainly the question of
Anglican Orders, deriving from Rome, was essentially a problem coming
under the jurisdiction of that Patriarchate.
Obviously, he said, England could not by any perversion of logic be
considered within the jurisdiction of any Eastern Patriarchate; and to
presume to settle any ecclesiastical problem arising among non-Orthodox
peoples in that area would destroy once and for all the foundation and
corner stone upon which all contentions between the Eastern
Patriarchate and Rome had been erected.
In writing his documents, Meletios contended that he made his Greek
sufficiently vague and subtle so as not to commit Orthodoxy to any
untenable position. When I raised honest doubts, he further pointed out
that the most that any person could obtain in the way of satisfaction
from his documents was a mere opinion; and that even though an opinion
derived from the Patriarch and Synod of Constantinople, it still
remained an opinion and nothing more, and opinions never had and
probably never would have any binding force in the realm of dogma or
upon the Orthodox conscience.
Because I was still unconvinced, he reiterated that if I would
re-examine the documents with care I would discover that Constantinople
had only reviewed the report of a committee, merely taking note of the
things contained therein. He then made a distinction between his
encyclical to the Orthodox Churches and his private letter to the
Archbishop of Canterbury. The former he held was the document upon
which Orthodoxy could pass judgment; the latter was a personal matter.
An analysis of the two documents will reveal why Meletios made this
distinction. It is interesting to note in this connection that all
copies and translations released in England of this letter carry the
simple signature of Meletios, not his rank and title.
Meletios in our conversation desired me to keep in mind that in his
encyclical it was clear that both he and his Synod in accepting the
report of the committee accepted it as an opinion and requested further
opinion from other Orthodox Patriarchates. If the English had any sense
of history, Meletios continued, the English should know that the
Orthodox Church can only speak as a whole.
"Opinions," Meletios said with a twinkle in his eye, "are, after all,
just opinions, and the Greeks, as a people, have a considerable
reputation for being able to change them very quickly. Remember, my
son, there is a world of difference between opinions and conclusions."
This then is a brief summary of Meletios' own estimate of his own
documents.
There is another angle to this whole involved question of the
historical setting of these documents, which merits passing attention.
It has to do with the question of who constituted this committee and
just what its full report said. When we were in residence in
Constantinople, we were unable to locate this report, and so was
everyone else. It was just counted as among the number of missing
documents. While we are in no position to say with finality that no
such report ever existed, until it is produced we will remain of the
opinion that it never did exist. This does not mean that it never will
be produced. Knowing the ability of the Phanar to produce documents
when and where needed, we think it is entirely possible that if
pressure were brought the report would come into being in short order.
At least two conclusions are justified by any historian of these
particular documents. The first is, that since the reconstituting of
the Greek nation to a precarious existence, Greek ecclesiastics are
very prone to consider themselves as Greeks in the political sense
first and as representatives of the Orthodox Faith afterward. Secondly,
our Christian charity demands that we do not judge too harshly the acts
of Greek hierarchs, when as men and members of a once great race they
use every instrument at their command to stem the tide of the
destruction of the Greek people by the Christian powers of the West.
As documents these pronouncements, which we have considered, are no
more than interesting ecclesiastical curiosa, reflecting the political
stresses and strains of the Greeks as political beings. As statements
of Orthodox teaching and dogma they are completely meaningless and not
worth the paper they were written on.
5. LENTEN SELECTIONS FROM THE BOOK CENTER
Click here to
order the titles below
(AD) ABBA DOROTHEOS: Practical Teaching on the Christian Life
translated. by Constantine Scouteris. A NEW translation of the complete
teachings and letters of St. Dorotheos, together with his life and that
of Abba Dositheos, and chapters on monasticism. Includes the complete
text on audio CD (Windows and MAC compatible). Must be used in
conjunction with a computer. Will not run on cd-player. 374pp. Cloth
e$40.00
(MAT) MATERICON: INSTRUCTIONS OF ABBA ISAIAH TO THE HONORABLE NUN
THEODORA
Translated from the Russian edition of St. Theophan the Recluse. The
collected sayings of the early Desert Mothers, and the personal
instructions given by Abba Isaiah to a young nun Theodora (4th c.).
229pp. Paper d$12.00
(SCJ) THE SPIRITUAL COUNSELS OF FR. JOHN OF KRONSTADT, translated by W.
Jardine Grisbrooke. Selections from MY LIFE IN CHRIST arranged by
subject. 230pp Paper d$12.00
(GL) GREAT LENT: Journey to Pascha by Alexander Schmemann. Short
expla-nations of Great Lent based upon Scriptures, parables and themes
found in the liturgical services of the Church, this is an excellent
addition to any Orthodox library. 140pp Paper d$11.00
(ORA) ON REPENTANCE AND ALMSGIVING by St. John Chrysostom. Nine
homilies on Repentance and one on Almsgiving delivered in Antioch in
386 and 387. These are some of the most beautiful and compunctionate
sermons on turning the heart and mind to the "mind of Christ." Cloth
159pp. f$30.00